hornetguy
15-Year Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,353
Gay and Lesbian service members serving openly in the military and same sex marraige being recognized by the military is still very new.
While there are states that have legalized same sex marraige, the votes were not overwhelming. There are many service members that oppose same sex marraige and there will be for some time.
I don't see the military cracking down on a service members right to think one way or another. What I do see them doing is making an effort to keep these members from making their views public to other members, as it should be in my opinion.
I think Bullet put it best in his post about lines that should not be crossed.
Make an open remark about minority sevice members and the hammer comes down quickly, I don't see any difference in this case.
The person in this article can have whatever Personal Family Ethos he wants, but keep it just that, personal.
On a side note, for the past 4 years there have been at least one Gay and one Lesbian Cadet in my son's battalion. They all knew even prior to DADT being repealed. I asked him about it one time, they said nobody could care less and it was never an issue. I am sure it is not like this everywhere, hopefully it will be some day.
+1
The number of instances where issues occur is pretty low. I'm part of a junior officer group for LGB officers across the branches in every job. For every bad story, there's 20 good ones. When I visit my fiance and happen to be in his squadron or at a squadron outing, they all know me by name (spouses included) and people like his sq commander and DO will come up to me and ask how I'm doing and when I'm going to UPT, etc. This is a fighter squadron - one of the groups like infantry that people thought wouldn't accept DADT repeal.
Another personal story shows that people who feel the need to denigrate LGB people are usually shot down by straight peers rather than any official complaints from LGB personnel. When we had our DADT repeal training at RAND (12 Lts and the UCLA LtCol Det commander), one of the Lts was not shy. He was a very evangelical person and would ask me about my own religious beliefs, church, and would question why I didn't believe (I'm agnostic). This is without knowing my orientation. At the briefing he said, "I'd be allowed to tell an alcoholic that their lifestyle is harmful and they should get help, I should be able to tell a gay person the same. It's against the Constitution that I shouldn't be allowed to express my distaste for homosexuals and how sinful their lifestyle is." By this point, I'm starting to get real uncomfortable, and at the time no one else knew about me in that room. Before the LTC said anything, just about everyone else in the room was getting up to (metaphorically) smack this guy. There were some pointed remarks to him about his oath taking priority over expressing his personal beliefs professionally. The LTC very professionally explained to him why he was incorrect and used the metaphor that replacing gay with black, white, female, foreign, etc. would be just as wrong. Needless to say, this was a positive experience for me seeing the support from peers and leadership. It was one of the reasons I was comfortable being out after repeal. Little did I know at the time that our det commander was also gay (and a prior F-15 driver).
My point is that these sensational articles you see are not the norm and used most often by people who are pissed that they can't marginalize a group they dislike or find distasteful anymore. Those types are a minority. I've worked with, went to USAFA with, and had many friends who has their religious opinion on gays but I've found overwhelmingly that they either 1) reevaluated their position after finding out their friends who happen to be gay are just like anyone else and 2) they respected me and, though holding to their position on things like religious marriage, they agreed that my civil rights (as opposed to religious rites) should be equally protected and continued to value our professional relationship and didn't bring those conflicts into the workplace.
As a more general statement, while votes weren't necessarily overwhelming overall, the votes were usually overwhelming in the <35 y/o group that constitutes the majority of military members.